Elin Nordegren: "Nine Iron? **giggle** What's that? **tee hee**"
Talk about a good career move.
Elin Nordegren is sort of attractive, I guess.. if you go for that sort of look - and in so being, catches the eye of Tiger Woods, has a couple of babies, and now, thanks to his lack of fidelity, collects on a $100 million settlement, plus, I'm sure, extremely generous child support.
Which got me to thinking.
As we scramble all over ourselves to recognize the equal value of women in society, it seems somewhat ironic that our judicial system does it's best to put women back where they were in the 50's.
Pregnant and in the kitchen.
Because, apparently, that's where the real value lies in a woman, no?
Rather than spend the tens of thousands of dollars it takes - not to mention the effort - to become a doctor or lawyer or other professional - the better money is on eschewing that sort of effort and just being pretty and making babies.
Rather than spending hundreds and thousands of hours on a golf course honing your skills so that you can be the best golfer on the face of the earth - you just bide your time, make yourself attractive, and marry the best golfer on the face of the earth.
Really.. today it's a sucker play for women to become self-sufficient.
And beyond the message sent to women by awarding them, typically, 50% of what has been amassed from the husband's efforts, a closer examination of the family law process discloses an even more distressing message regarding the attitude of our Courts towards the ability of women to be respected as "equals".
Read the decision of our Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Miglin, or another case called Rick.. the not-so-subtle message is that women are not really able to make their own decisions. That even with the assistance of legal counsel, they are, really, to be treated as children - and all decisions they make must be subject to approval of their guardians - the Courts.
So often as we seek to "protect" what we really do is weaken.
Providing a woman significant property and support in a divorce may give them "wealth", but does it give them "worth"?
6 comments:
Funny I thought the point of the woman's movement was supposed to be about choices. The choice to be pretty, stay home and make babies is obviously not a valid, choice of value to YOU.
So let me get this straight, Tiger a do nothing as$ hat that chases little white balls ( and apparently everything with a V)around is married to a pretty baby making woman who had a career and he dallies, gets caught and then has to pay up and all you have to say is she is a waste and a symbol of the wrong kinda weak woman who has betrayed the woman's movement?
Really?
Give me a break.
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I have 2 neices under age 10 who, when you ask what they want to do when they grow up, will boldly answer that they will grow up and mary a rich man. Seriously.
But then you might want to look at things from another perspective... it can be very difficult to find someone you love and then support them through a career that involves a lot of traveling and a lot of time away from the family. Maybe you would continue working, but you are in effect a single-parent home a great deal of the time, so working a full challenging career can take more time away from your young children. Time that you can never get back. So a wife in such a position, pretty or not, gorgeous body or not, may support her husband's career and decide that she should spend as much time with the children as possible since they are already lacking in one parent's attention and presence.
And as for money, i know a lot of people do not like the 50% thing... but the man knows the chances of that before he gets married too. and one that chooses to dip his nib in everyone else's ink while married is taking a risk while knowing full well what the consequences are.
Should a woman who had to stay home alone a LOT while virtually raising her children alone (as in, without hubby) for months on end, making sure the home-end of things is running ship shape so hubby can be stress-free and bring home the big wins and endorsment moola, be forced to walk away with the shirt on her back and that's about it?
I was in a relationship for 4 years where i fully supported my partner's career. His long shifts, studying til all hours of the night, helping him study, moving twice to new towns and a different province, supporting him by listening, looking after the two children almost entirely by myself, etc etc... but when we split up due to him cheating (gee does this sound familiar?) he had the gall to say that i never supported him through any of his life choices. I was LIVID. I was more supportive than 99% of my friends would have been, and I spent a lot of lonely nights while he was out working to better his career and working two jobs and going to college at the same time. I tell ya, his comments made me want to take every damned cent I could wring out of his neck. It was hugely unfair of him to speak to me that way after all I had done to help him along. Maybe elin feels the same way. sure, it was Tiger's game that got him to where he is - but he chose to marry her, made vows, signed legal papers, and then threw it all to the wind over some other women here and there, and everywhere. Why shouldn't she have a piece of what he amassed while they were together? Who knows if she supported him strongly, pep talks, cheering him on, standing strong with him, being there for him when his father died - only to find out that the whole time, her husband was playing her a fool.
Is it hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, or a man who did not honor his contract and is now boohooing about his financial losses? If elin had been more of a Plain Jane, would this post have been made at all? Just wondering ;)
sorry, a double post by accident above.
I would like to add though that I know 2 women around here that had to pay their husbands spousal support after they split, and the women had been quite well off on their own before getting married, but one lost the house to her husband, and one lost holiday properties and a fancy old car, because they earned more than their partners. So in cases like that, I would say that women are being treated equally as well ;) I just dont currently know enough women who were divorced making more money than their husbands, even ones in the same job fields. So I dont have any more than 2 to use as an example ;)
I know of NO career that is more rewarding, satisfying and honourable for a woman than nuturing the next generation. You sound like the lefties who want all our kids in state-sponsored daycares and schools because parents are too stupid to raise them. Hats off to those stay at home Moms who support their families. This too, is work (24/7) even though it doesn't generate a big paycheque.
Try not to confuse division of property with spousal support and child support.
The purpose of division of property is to compensate for unpaid domestic labour and child care. It's not a question of women not being able to look after themselves, it's a recognition of the time and effort that goes into valuable unpaid labour.
Men with wives tend to be able to make more money. You can devote more to your paid work if you have someone to do all your unpaid work for you. Women who marry and raise families tend to suffer for it in their paid work. I'd say that entitles women to some of the property/value of the property accumulated since they became spouses.
There may be individual instances where the man decides to be a homemaker and the woman devotes herself to her paid work. Or a same-sex relationship with a similar division of labour. The 50% division of property still applies, as it should. Household labour may be unpaid, but it is a valuable economic contribution and deserves to be recognized.
Spousal support is far more fraught, and whether or not it is justified depends on the context. Typically, I don't think it should be necessary.
Child support on the other hand... raising a child is expensive. I don't understand why people begrudge caregivers child support.
To answer your rhetorical question, YES! It recognizes the worth of what is still overwhelmingly "women's work" - unpaid household labour.
Post a Comment